NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My Note: Too bad they decided to remain neutral on the Fisheries flexibilty act. Even if we win on fluke we will have to fight the same battle over and over on other species without a change in the law.

Industry leaders announce plan to address summer flounder fishery issues



April 30, 2008, Alexandria, Va. ? The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is recommending a six-point plan of action to maintain summer flounder fishing along the mid-Atlantic coast. Industry leaders and angler groups are concerned about a threatened closing of the summer flounder fishery in 2009 in federal waters (three miles to 200 miles offshore) by federal fishery managers.



?This fishery is one of the most important sportfish on the U.S. Atlantic coast,? said ASA Vice President Gordon Robertson. ?Clearly such an action would reduce recreational fishing opportunity and have a negative impact on the sportfishing businesses which depend on summer flounder. The irony of this threat is that summer flounder stocks in the Atlantic are at a 40 year high.?



The six-point plan was approved by the ASA Government Affairs Committee at its April meeting in California. ?ASA has been concerned about the summer flounder fishery for quite some time,? said Bill Shedd, ASA Government Affairs Committee chairman and President of AFTCO Manufacturing Co., Inc. ?Like most complicated issues, there is no one answer and there is no quick fix for challenges facing the summer flounder fishery. But we believe these steps will go a long way towards keeping the 2009 season open.?



The six action items are:

Encourage the states, through their management measures of season length, creel limits and size limits, to stay within the recreational allocation, allowing the summer flounder fishing to continue.
Request that the federal government conduct an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors of the summer flounder fishery and reallocate the fishery more equitably between the recreational and commercial sectors. The current allocation is 60 percent commercial and 40 percent recreational.
Request that the National Marine Fisheries Service improve its recreational angler participation data. Congress has recognized that dependable angler participation data is a key factor in fishery management decisions and needs to be improved. In addition, every effort should be taken by state authorities to improve their marine recreational angler participation data.
Take measures to accurately determine the target biomass for summer flounder and improve the science review of the summer flounder stock assessment scheduled for summer 2008.
Request that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council follow the advice provided by its Science and Statistical Committee.
After an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors, begin discussions among fishery groups for Congressional action seeking a buy-out of available summer flounder commercial fisheries.


Saltwater Subcommittee Chairman, Ben Moore, vice president, Boater?s World, said, ?We chose these actions because they are all areas that the industry and angler groups can take action on now and expect a reasonable chance for success. The committee reviewed a wide range of actions, including legislation, but found that these six points were the most effective and most likely to succeed.? Moore further said, ?We encourage industry members and angler groups to work with ASA in a coordinated and collaborative way to implement these points. We can accomplish a great deal much more quickly when we work together.?



ASA has been working with the Save the Summer Flounder Fishing Fund, located in New Jersey, to raise funds for additional review of scientific data used to set summer flounder fishing seasons.



Phil Morlock, Government Affairs Committee member and Environmental Affairs director at Shimano, said, ?The committee members are very aware of the significant negative economic impacts for the fishing tackle industry and related businesses if the summer flounder issue is not addressed in a timely and comprehensive manner. To be successful, ASA?s action plan will require the full cooperation and sustained active involvement of every manufacturer, retailer, sales agency and the anglers who are our customers. We remain convinced that a rational and responsible solution is possible by this approach. Anything less is simply unacceptable.?



?The Government Affairs Committee had a thoughtful and thorough discussion concerning this issue,? said Robertson. ?Today?s challenges include summer flounder, red snapper and grouper, but other fish stocks will challenge managers in future years. We must continue to review the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act and identify problem areas. As these areas are identified, we must work cooperatively for effective solutions.?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,822 Posts
ASA wrote:
The six action items are:

Encourage the states, through their management measures of season length, creel limits and size limits, to stay within the recreational allocation, allowing the summer flounder fishing to continue. That's good- Tighten the regs even more, and encourage early seasonal closures if they're not working? Is that what that says?
ASA wrote:
Request that the federal government conduct an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors of the summer flounder fishery and reallocate the fishery more equitably between the recreational and commercial sectors. The current allocation is 60 percent commercial and 40 percent recreational.A fish grab. Won't matter much what the rec percentage is if they close the fishery, right?
ASA wrote:
Request that the National Marine Fisheries Service improve its recreational angler participation data. Congress has recognized that dependable angler participation data is a key factor in fishery management decisions and needs to be improved. In addition, every effort should be taken by state authorities to improve their marine recreational angler participation data.There's a new idea. I'm sure they'll get right on that one.
ASA wrote:
Take measures to accurately determine the target biomass for summer flounder and improve the science review of the summer flounder stock assessment scheduled for summer 2008.That would be good. Another long-submitted request that doesn't seem to cause any true actions.
ASA wrote:
Request that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council follow the advice provided by its Science and Statistical Committee.Is that really a good idea? Wouldn't we be at 11 million pounds this year if we did that?
ASA wrote:
After an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors, begin discussions among fishery groups for Congressional action seeking a buy-out of available summer flounder commercial fisheries. Instead of correcting the fishery management, we should reduce the capacity of the commercial fleet to provide fluke to people who don't fish. I guess that's a viable option, and maybe the only tangible one at this time.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
Some people do get it.

NMMA STATEMENT ON H.R. 5425, THE FLEXIBILITY IN
REBUILDING AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT OF 2008

May 1, 2008

?The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) strongly supports fisheries management policies that conserve, protect and enhance important recreational fisheries while maintaining public access to sport fishing. Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent
that current federal fisheries laws will become increasingly restrictive for recreational anglers even as many managed stocks are at high?and, in some cases, historically high?abundance and are in positive rebuilding periods. Consequently, in many cases current law may have undue negative economic impacts for sport anglers and their
support industries.

?Healthy, abundant fish stocks are the essential element of a positive fishing experience. It is therefore imperative that the nation?s overfished fisheries rebuild and achieve sustainable abundance in a timely way. National fisheries policy must be based on sound science and fisheries managers should be empowered to pursue management strategies that work toward robust and effective conservation while at the same time minimizing, where possible, adverse social and economic impacts on the regulated community. NMMA believes H.R. 5425, sponsored by U.S. Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, strikes this important balance.

?NMMA maintains its strong desire to work cooperatively with all major recreational fishing organizations to achieve a solution to this problem and looks forward to continuing dialogue with all organizations in the recreational fishing community.
NMMA respects and values all the major recreational fishing organizations and the work they do. Recognizing that multiple approaches may be necessary to resolve this issue, NMMA hopes that all stakeholders can work toward a common solution that everyone in
recreational boating and fishing can support.?

This post edited by CaptTB 08:19 AM 05/01/2008
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,371 Posts
So this is what it comes down too, drawing a line in the sand AGAIN between the recreational and commercial fishermen in this country:

ASA wrote:
After an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors, begin discussions among fishery groups for Congressional action seeking a buy-out of available summer flounder commercial fisheries.

It is a amazing that a philosophy still exists among the recreational fishing community that the answer to getting more summer flounder is to take it from highly regulated commercial fishing community.

That is not the answer!

The amount of fishermen within the commercial community is controlled by permits, thus being ONE factor in limiting effort in the catching of summer flounder. The second is through 'hard-cap' style trip limits and seasonal closures. In the commercial community we have a greater accuracy in counting how many fish are brought to the dock because we know how many fishermen in this sector are fishing. We know what is being landed, and we can control how much this sector takes.

The recreational fishing community is not controlled in ANY WAY by the amount of fishermen who go out fluke fishing. Who knows the amount of fluke taken on a nice summer weekend in New York waters...are there 5 thousand, 10 thousand or more anglers taking fluke? Where is the accuracy in accounting for this effort by recreational fishing community?

There is no limit on the amount of anglers that can take fluke, nor can we accurately quantify the amount of fluke taken everyday by the recreational community during the fluke season.

The commercial fishing community is being reduced very quickly through economic factors, thus fishermen, there vessels and there licenses are now being taken out of this equation...literally they will NOT be replaced.

Why is it simplistic ideas like this are floated around as the answer to the recreational fishing dilemmia in getting a bigger piece of the fluke pie or quota as measured by the managers?

Why is it that the United States tax payer has to step in once again to provide monetary relief to solve a problem in a fishery that on all apearences happens to be in the best shape that it has been in the last 40 plus years?

This is NOT the correct approach in solving who gets what percentage of the summer flounder fishery. It is INCORRECT to believe that the commercial fishing industry is the cause of this problem.

When I read this, I fully understand why flash frozen fish, exotic third world caught fish and styro boxed fish will dominate our retail seafood displays in our local markets. It is happening already in most parts of this great land, which no longer will receive the best FRESH seafood products that our commercial fishing industry can provide.

Is this what 'you' the recreational anglers want when you cannot catch your own fresh seafood?

The fight over who gets what is NOT BETWEEN OTHER FISHERMEN!

This is a fight against the government fishery managers, large mutlinational corporations who are involved in fishing and special interest environmental groups who want to restrict every fishermens rights in taking a few fish home for dinner.

Don't be confused by recreational fishing groups rhetoric that thinning what is left of our commercial fishing industry will solve every anglers problem in getting to keep more summer flounder during the season.

It will not!

EC NEWELL MAN><
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Guys, you're not leaving me anything to say!

If we had this level of clear-headedness throughout the recreational and commercial fishing communities, we wouldn't be in anywhere near the shape we're in.

Thanks
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
If nothing else it ahould serve as a great reminder that while we here are pretty much in agreement about what needs to be done and that all fishermen should stand together, not very many people in the recreational community feel the same way. Remember the ASA is made up mostly of tackle Manufacturers and where do you think they get their attitudes from?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,874 Posts
For the record, I think ASA got this one wrong. Although I do like the idea of a buyout but I didn't think there was anything left to buy?

I also like the idea of looking at the 60-40 split. I am a recreational angler and my only interest in that sector, so it seems only fair that millions of anglers along the coast should get at least 50% of this fishery.

And please don't tell me about the fish buying public, because the way I see it is if they want the fish so bad let them catch them, the same way I have to shoot a dear to eat venison.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,142 Posts
oh please

Where would you expect the head of multiple recreational based websites ans publications to come out on this.

Im not anti commerical in the least but I would not mind a bigger slice of the pie . I would go out and beat my chest looking for it but im not arguing with any one offering it. Its just my perspective .
Just as most on the commericial wouldnt mind Getting a 70/30 split

you cant just thumb George down for looking out for his interest and the interest of most of his advertising base

I think he actualy goes above and beyond in some ways .
Allowing points of view that are not always complimentary to his core audiance.

So lets allow the man his opinion as he allows us to voice ours
 

· Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
quote:

Capt Paul wrote:

ASA wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The six action items are:

Encourage the states, through their management measures of season length, creel limits and size limits, to stay within the recreational allocation, allowing the summer flounder fishing to continue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's good- Tighten the regs even more, and encourage early seasonal closures if they're not working? Is that what that says?

Yes, that's how I read it. The American SportFishing Association is saying what NMFS has been saying lately: Get real and STOP PERPETUAL OVERAGES IN THE RECREATIONAL SECTOR.

But for some reason, I infer that you think that getting real is a bad thing, Capt Paul. If so, then why?

quote:

Capt Paul wrote:

ASA wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request that the federal government conduct an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors of the summer flounder fishery and reallocate the fishery more equitably between the recreational and commercial sectors. The current allocation is 60 percent commercial and 40 percent recreational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fish grab. Won't matter much what the rec percentage is if they close the fishery, right?

A fish grab? Maybe. But as I understand it, the current 60/40 comm/rec split is based on some shakey base years that arguably robbed recs on that one. On the one hand, I think this point of ASA's plan has a lot of merit. But it was tried vigoursly in the past at the MAFMC and failed (October 2006 {Amendment 15}). So I don't think it would be worth the time this time around. But I could be wrong and if it is retried I wish them all the luck in the world.

quote:

Capt Paul wrote:

ASA wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request that the National Marine Fisheries Service improve its recreational angler participation data. Congress has recognized that dependable angler participation data is a key factor in fishery management decisions and needs to be improved. In addition, every effort should be taken by state authorities to improve their marine recreational angler participation data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a new idea. I'm sure they'll get right on that one.

Unless I'm mistaken, this one is already under way per the recent reauthorization of MSA.

quote:

Capt Paul wrote:

ASA wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take measures to accurately determine the target biomass for summer flounder and improve the science review of the summer flounder stock assessment scheduled for summer 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be good. Another long-submitted request that doesn't seem to cause any true actions.

Capt Paul, you probably didn't realize it but you just bashed 1/2 of Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund's stated goals. The remaining 1/2 being to weaken MSA.

Personally, I support ASA (and SSFFF) on funding improved data on fluke. While that sword cuts both ways, it will finally put to rest many of the claims of how far along we really are on rebuilding summer flounder.

So I'm not sure why you are knocking it.

quote:

Capt Paul wrote:

ASA wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council follow the advice provided by its Science and Statistical Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that really a good idea? Wouldn't we be at 11 million pounds this year if we did that?
Yes and yes.

It's the whole getting real thing again.

Capt Paul wrote:

ASA wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors, begin discussions among fishery groups for Congressional action seeking a buy-out of available summer flounder commercial fisheries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of correcting the fishery management, we should reduce the capacity of the commercial fleet to provide fluke to people who don't fish. I guess that's a viable option, and maybe the only tangible one at this time.

Agreed. But I don't really know how bad the overcapacity problem is in the comm fluke fishery - or if there even is a problem. Could be. I just never looked into it.

But if significant overcapacity does exist in the comm fluke fishery, like we see with the NE groundfish fishery, then maybe the buyout can be done in the manner that the west coast has done with a congressional approved loan that the remaining participants would have to pay back. In other words, your tax dollars woudn't be used.

Best,
Mike F.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
quote:

CaptTB wrote:

Some people do get it.

Tony, when you posted that, was it meant to imply that the American Sportfishing Association doesn't "get it" - perhaps because they didn't specifically give their support to HR 5425 like NMMA did?

I'm not trying to spin your post. That's just how I took it. I'm just asking for clarification.

Thanks,
Mike F.


This post edited by flatts1b 10:38 PM 05/01/2008
 

· Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
NMMA's letter to Congressman Pallone:

May 1, 2008

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
237 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Congressman Pallone:

The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), the nation?s leading recreational marine industry trade association, is pleased to offer its support H.R. 5425, the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2008. HR 5425 seeks to attain a balanced approach to fisheries management, allowing a limited increase of flexibility in the law for stocks on a positive rebuilding trend in order to avoid undue economic hardship on the recreational fishing community.

NMMA represents nearly 1,700 boat builders, engine manufacturers, and marine accessory manufacturers who collectively produce more than 80 percent of all recreational marine products made in the United States. With almost 73 million boaters nationwide, the recreational boating industry is a major consumer goods industry with expenditures on recreational marine products and services of $39.5 billion in 2006 alone.

NMMA has long recognized the strong relationship between recreational boating and fishing. The recreational boating industry has a strong interest in and proactively seeks policies that conserve, protect and enhance important recreational fisheries while maintaining public access to sport fishing.
Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that current federal fisheries laws will become increasingly restrictive for recreational anglers even as many managed stocks are at high?and, in some cases, historically high?abundance and are in positive rebuilding periods. Consequently, in many cases current law may have undue negative economic impacts for sport anglers and their support industries.

Healthy, abundant fish stocks are the essential element of a positive fishing experience. It is therefore imperative that the nation?s overfished fisheries rebuild and achieve sustainable abundance in a timely way. National fisheries policy must be based on sound science and fisheries managers should be empowered to pursue management strategies that work toward robust and effective conservation while at the same time minimizing, where possible, adverse social and economic impacts on the regulated community. NMMA believes H.R. 5425, sponsored by U.S. Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, strikes this important balance.

NMMA appreciates your leadership and the leadership of the cosponsors of H.R. 5425 on this and other important natural resource issues. Please do not hesitate to contact Mathew Dunn of my staff at [email protected] if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Scott B. Gudes
Vice President, Government Relations
 

· Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
partyboatangler wrote:
flatts1b wrote:

I'm trying to spin your post.

Finally we get the truth


Ooops. Sorry about that. I meant to say "I'm not trying to spin your post".

But your humor is taken. :)

Just making sure you're out there.:)
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top